Whenever I join into a game I usually ask what the party is lacking and make an educated guess as to what I can play. If the gm says they have some healing but not a lot it's okay to play not a cleric. If the gm says that the party needs a healer I like to look at my options before building a healing domain cleric, or oracle of life.
Whenever I gm I look at the party and tell late comers what the party is lacking or could use. Latest example is my current game where the party didn't have any full casters (not entirely necessary but welcome) or ranged combatants. Player was interested in playing something ranged and was new, asked for help so I showed a few example builds, explained their strengths and weaknesses and showed the player the prd. Let the player tinker around with their own tools, did side by side comparisons to what I had built (mine were non optimized but could survive) and ultimately I let the player decide. If a party needs a healer I let the player know that the others would appreciate a healer or something that can toss a few healing spells or use a wand of cure light.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the party shouldn't be dicks to each other, but a few strong recommendations can be made as suggestions with incentives passed in that general direction, though i would rather the Party explain what they are looking for in detail rather than "we need a cleric" or "we need a divine caster." saying "we need somebody to Patch our Wounds" is fine though. though it needn't be answered immediately. the 1e/2e mishmash mage/thief i played in the regrettable 1997 Monty Haul of Mooks and Traps was a response to the Party's need to deal with traps and their need to take out Mooks. she just didn't do it the way they expected her too. i didn't even read the books because i wasn't allowed to and didn't own them, but got lucky on a lot of enchantment spells known and well, did all sorts of kill hogging. because there be lotsa mooks. it was a New DM whom loved to include lotsa mooks as his main challenge.
That seems reasonable enough.
My main point is that often a little metagaming actually ends up with people having more fun as a group. I personally never get my heart so set on a specific character type that I can't adjust to be a better team player.
Although I have some problems with the system, I think one of Pathfinder's great strengths is its flexibility. Using your example, the 'wound patcher' role can be filled by a great variety of characters. In our Carrion Crown game, my Paladin splits the healing duties with the Witch and Inquisitor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm wholly opposed to DMs saying, "Hey, we need a healer; play a cleric." To me, that's complete BS. Lack of balance on the party's part does not constitute sufficient reason for someone to play a class he or she despises.
I'm largely opposed to DMs saying, "Look, the party is martial heavy, and we could really, really use a full caster. Why don't you play a [insert one of those]? I'll let you do as you like but ... take one for the team, will you?" Same reasoning as above, and in my opinion a DM applying pressure inappropriately.
I'm slightly opposed to DMs saying, "Hey, the party consists of a fighter, barbarian, ranger, bard, and rogue. Does anything besides those appeal to you?" If I have my heart set on playing a barbarian, there's plenty of opportunity for role-playing as the Conan-come-lately. In my opinion, a DM with imagination should simply adjust his or her thinking to accommodate the newcomer.
This I can agree with. I don't believe there are 'roles' anymore, and with the 22 classes and 4-5 players... there is plenty of overlap and no 'one class' is ever necessary.
From where I sit (behind the screen), a new player should know nothing about party composition, because it's meta-gaming. They should instead be allowed to conceptualize in a relative vacuum, creating and fleshing out a concept regardless of the established group's complement. The only exceptions that spring to mind are:
- A character whose concept is diametrically opposed to the majority's make-up; i.e., forbid or strongly discourage a paladin in a group that consists of an evil cleric, wizard and anti-paladin
- A player who's truly OK with playing whatever
I think synergy and cooperation should come into play only after players have made their role-play choices. Otherwise, it's an unfair and unnecessary compromise.
Opinions?
This I think goes too far.
I would never tell a player what they need... But I absolutely would tell the players what we have.
And honestly, it's not FOR the group that I'm doing that... it's for the PLAYERS.
Is it metagamey? Probably. But in a GOOD way. I typically have 2-3 cool character ideas in mind at any given time. As an experienced player... I do NOT want my awesome Elven archer idea to be fighting side by side with a ranger archer or Zen archer... That sounds boring, and neither of us are going to have a time to shine if we're both doing the same thing.
For a NEW player... its even WORSE. Because if he brings in a fighter or magus... and there is already a fighter and magus in the group... odds are PRETTY good that the experienced players are going to game circles around that first character. Everything the new guy came up with will be done BETTER by the person who knows the system better.
What fun is that? To heck with how the 'story flows realistically'.... if the new guy isn't having fun or feels like his character is worthless... then he isn't going to keep playing.
Now... If you TELL him you have polearm fighter in the group... and he wants to play an archer fighter or two weapon fighter... then those characters can be made differently enough to be fun together... but give the guy a heads up....
a little metagaming helps the party go a long way, or else you could end up with a 15 person Party of 80% martial or pseudomartial characters like i did, and end up rolling up a Martial Bard to make the party of warriors even better as the 16th PC.
|
It is b%&##+$% to say that there are necessary roles that must be filled. It is not b+#$&&*%, however, to a) point out that there is already someone playing a paladin, for example, which would mean your character will be very similar to another, and b) let the party lacking some important capability to find it a serious problem. It is not the GM's job to only put in monsters that a wizard only party can easily deal with, nor to provide multiple copies of loot for gunslingers/whatever.
This.
Warning people that their character idea might not be the most fun in the current group (like a Sorcerer joining a group with one of those Wizards who have every spell there is), or warning the group that they lack a vital skill (like noting "You guys lack a healer."), is the GM's job. Forcing people to play anything isn't. If the Sorcerer wants to join the group with the Wizard, or the group wants to go healer-less, that's fine...but I feel a warning is in order.
Additionally, sometimes a suggestion of a minor modification or for a specific version can be good. For example, while I wasn't the GM in this case, I recommended an Urban Ranger to one of my fellow players in an upcoming RotRL game since he was planning on making a Butterfly Sting TWF build, hadn't decided on a class yet, and we needed somebody to deal with traps. I also suggested the Healing Patron to the guy going Witch since we lacked any other real healer. I would've likely made similar recommendations (and that's all they are, recommendations) had I been the GM, and I think that's acceptable.
I'm currently in a party of 6 (plus one pet), where all but one are melee-focused.
We run into a frequent problem: Often, party members can do nothing in combat (except maybe 'aid other') because there's no room to get in to attack stuff.
|
|
Not quite this, actually.
If modules and APs are designed, for the most part, to accommodate what has been deemed From On High a "balanced" party (and they are, from what I understand), there's absolutely nothing wrong with tinkering with and/or tailoring a game for an unbalanced party ... or, rather, one balanced in another fashion. The error here is assuming that the default has any special status simply because it's the default. It doesn't.
I don't really buy into the "There are two monks in my group! Waah! I'm not unique!" complaint. There are so many interesting role-playing directions one can take in that case it shouldn't be an issue.
It's true that an unbalanced party is quite legitimate, however, the issue I'm referring to is a bit different than the 'need for a balanced party'. Or not having two of the same class. The issue I'm referring to is being overshadowed. For example, if you have two Arcane Spellcasters with the same list (Wizards/Sorcerers) focusing on the exact same spells, or maybe even a different set of spells, if one's objectively better than the other, is very likely to result in one being flat-out more effective...and the other thus feeling overshadowed and frustrated. That's not inevitable in two characters of the same class (a buffing or summoning Sorcerer and a save-or-die Sorcerer can easily coexist, as can a Tetori Monk and a Flowing Monk, or a maneuver-based Lore Warden and an Archery Fighter) but two characters in the exact same role is almost bound to cause problems.
It's also really hard to orchestrate a game that doesn't require healing/condition removal at some point. That's the only real required thing, though, and it doesn't necessitate a real focus on that, just the basic ability to do it.
That said ...
... on the other hand ... it does probably behoove a DM to ask if a new player considers it important to be the only one of that class in the party he's joining, if such is important to his or her enjoyment of the game. It's a not-unreasonable accommodation to make. Alternately, if it's going to really piss off an established player once someone brings another sorcerer into the game, a DM should probably keep that in mind, too.
I agree with this, but as mentioned above it's a bit more complex than that, IMO.
I agree, but tend to do so circumspectly, rather than stating it explicitly. That's a stylistic difference, I suppose. So long as a player can buy a clue, it's perfectly workable.
Yeah, that's a stylistic thing. I openly give players advice in a variety of situations (hell, I've occasionally been known to offer tactical advice in combat).
Many good perspectives in this thread. I'll have to rethink some of my more absolutist opinions on this matter.
Seems a reasonable plan, yeah.
Then, again, I did ask for opinions. ;)
Always a risky thing to do. :)
The only things I think a party needs arE:
-Someone who deals a lot of damage and hits reliably
-Someone who can cast spells
-Someone who can sneak
And you're about done. The 4th person can do whatever the Nine Hells they want. On the subject of new players: I have new people join/old people leave my group just about every year (I run through my college's club), so I encoutnered a lot. They generally fall into two types: The player that has no idea what to do with all these options and asks for input, and the player that wants to do something very specific and doesn't know how.
In either case, it's going to fall on me and the group to prod them in the right direction. I've only had one time where a new player read everything on his own time and made his own choice completely independent of the group or any advice from me.
|
|
Not sure I agree entirely, in that story/narrative often dictates who steps to the forefront in what situation. Still, your point about near-duplicates wherein one is simply less advanced could lead to frustration—especially if one's not aware of the possibility before stepping into that role/class.
Combat's a big part of Pathfinder, and being overshadowed in it rarely has to do with story reasons. Nor is a lot of face-time and plot relevance out of combat going to keep some people happy when they feel useless in battle.
Yeah. Healing is almost always critical. Condition removal seems to have become an unnecessary hydra in Pathfinder. I can't imagine playing the game that way; it'd become, in my eyes, tiresome very quickly.
But that's an entirely different subject.
Oh, it's not that bad. Most stuff you can likely wait a day to get rid of (poison's the big exception, and there are lots of ways around that one). You just need a guy with the Remove and Restoration spells available, not prepared [any Cleric or Druid will do, as will an Alchemist willing to invest a little gold on putting them in his formula book, or a Witch with the Healing patron, or an Inquisitor or Oracle who's willing to invest some spells known in it. A Paladin (or Cleric or Inquisitor unwilling to invest as much) can manage it with the help a few items, too].
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With respect to the questions bobbling around this conversation, I start with the primary job of the GM, making sure my players have a good game. If they've agreed to play Curse of the Crimson Throne based on my pitch, then I have a few things I need to do. I need to make sure the group can have a successful campaign together. If that means telling players to redesign to fit the group better as far as combat optimization goes, I will do so. If that means advising them about major gaps in their capabilities, I will advise them. I won't force particular solutions, though I may make recommendations. For example, if they don't have any healing capabilities, I will tell them that may be a problem... And leave it to them to devise a solution. That may mean one of them steps up to fill the gap by taking levels in a healing-friendly class. It may mean one plans on taking the leadership feat (yes, I have no trouble with PCs with leadership). It may mean they rely on an NPC hireling for a while.
Alternatively, if they want a more sandboxish campaign, I will advise them to seek out adventures that don't seem to require resources they don't have. For an all-barbarian party, that may mean boisterous combat, lots of travel by land, focus on situations with other fighting NPCs or big game animals. For an all arcane caster party, that may mean lost magical secrets, weird extra-dimensional realms, and seeking out masters from whom to learn new magics. But for Curse of the Crimson Throne, I would strongly suggest more class diversity if we wanted to continue with that particular campaign.
Without my advice when I think they need it, I beleive I would be failing in my primary job as GM.
|
Thanks for the spelling correction, for whatever reason my mind would not give the spelling.
Also I didnt mean to imply that the group was rejecting the player the GM invited, just that they might not think the character the players was bringing in would work with the characters they had.
If the current campaign is underground exploration why would the players HAVE to accept a pirate character from the new guy?
It's also really hard to orchestrate a game that doesn't require healing/condition removal at some point. That's the only real required thing, though, and it doesn't necessitate a real focus on that, just the basic ability to do it.
Honestly, that could be a LOT of fun...
What it would require is a lot of 'time' between battles. Fewer random encounters, Some kind of overall goal, but not the 'race against time' that most games have.
It might be interesting to see the heal skill and long term healing actually take the spotlight for a change....
The only things I think a party needs arE:
-Someone who deals a lot of damage and hits reliably
-Someone who can cast spells
-Someone who can sneakAnd you're about done. The 4th person can do whatever the Nine Hells they want. On the subject of new players: I have new people join/old people leave my group just about every year (I run through my college's club), so I encoutnered a lot. They generally fall into two types: The player that has no idea what to do with all these options and asks for input, and the player that wants to do something very specific and doesn't know how.
In either case, it's going to fall on me and the group to prod them in the right direction. I've only had one time where a new player read everything on his own time and made his own choice completely independent of the group or any advice from me.
You can get by without spells. Seen it done.
But it's a lot easier to get by without someone who sneaks. (IME)
But it's a lot easier to get by without someone who sneaks. (IME)
it is just as easy to get by without the trapfinding class feature in a game where you can load up on cheap healing wands. except in campaigns loaded with tons of automatically resetting magical traps, which the game wasn't built around excessive use of within its default assumptions.
You can get by without spells. Seen it done.The only things I think a party needs arE:
-Someone who deals a lot of damage and hits reliably
-Someone who can cast spells
-Someone who can sneakAnd you're about done. The 4th person can do whatever the Nine Hells they want. On the subject of new players: I have new people join/old people leave my group just about every year (I run through my college's club), so I encoutnered a lot. They generally fall into two types: The player that has no idea what to do with all these options and asks for input, and the player that wants to do something very specific and doesn't know how.
In either case, it's going to fall on me and the group to prod them in the right direction. I've only had one time where a new player read everything on his own time and made his own choice completely independent of the group or any advice from me.
It's possible for a party of all wizards to work as well. The existence of a niche exception doesn't negate the general need. I doubt a party with no access to magic in any fashion (UMD or otherwise) can get by just as easily as one with at least a magus.
But it's a lot easier to get by without someone who sneaks. (IME)
When I say sneak I also mean spellcasters with invisibility, not just the stealth skill. Any good campaign will necessitate caution and planning at least some of the time. In a game where you can just charge in and fight every time... well, you don't really need anything at all, because it's way too easy.
While it's already been mentioned, I think it's inevitable that when two players fill the same role ~ one player will end up being the lesser of the two.
If you're focused on a particular area like diplomacy and another character comes along and does way better than you, you're going to feel pretty useless. Or inversely trying to play a warrior and the current one in the party already does way better (with possibly better equipment) isn't a good place to be either.
~
In my game I'm GMing I told my players specifically at the start that I wasn't going to balance their choices, if they all wanted to play xyz the game would continue and they would have to excel and suffer for their choices.
It would seem however players have a natural tendency to find their equilibrium though. Holes are noticed and patched organically because that's what a team does ~ work together.
I'm not comfortable with DMs forcing a class/role/character archetype onto their players, but I don't see an issue with players concerting among each others to form a party that they will enjoy playing (unless players force a class/role/character archetype onto another player of course).
I'm also Ok with DMs suggesting classes that would better respect the theme/genre of the game.
It is a bit metagamey, but not in the typical sense where a character benefits from knowledge of the controlling players to cheat the game.
I've played a couple games in old WoD where we had the opposite problem; character concepts, clans and abilities were guarded like state secrets until the opening game and even then, players would reveal as least as they could, leading to totally disparate "parties" with competing goals and interests (not always in fun ways).
'findel
|
|
I'm not comfortable with DMs forcing a class/role/character archetype onto their players, but I don't see an issue with players concerting among each others to form a party that they will enjoy playing (unless players force a class/role/character archetype onto another player of course).
I'm also Ok with DMs suggesting classes that would better respect the theme/genre of the game.
It is a bit metagamey, but not in the typical sense where a character benefits from knowledge of the controlling players to cheat the game.
I've played a couple games in old WoD where we had the opposite problem; character concepts, clans and abilities were guarded like state secrets until the opening game and even then, players would reveal as least as they could, leading to totally disparate "parties" with competing goals and interests (not always in fun ways).
'findel
I'm pretty sure thats how WoD was meant to be played. It was very rare for non-clan members to work together.
I could be wrong but thats how I remember WoD.
I'm pretty sure thats how WoD was meant to be played. It was very rare for non-clan members to work together.
I could be wrong but thats how I remember WoD.
Definitely, WoD (well, Vampire; the mascarade at any case) totally played on player paranoia and and plotting, but I don't think the game was supposed to lead to inevitable pvp (well, sometimes I wonder...)
I'm pretty sure thats how WoD was meant to be played. It was very rare for non-clan members to work together.
I could be wrong but thats how I remember WoD.
Definitely, WoD (well, Vampire; the mascarade at any case) totally played on player paranoia and and plotting, but I don't think the game was supposed to lead to inevitable pvp (well, sometimes I wonder...)
Yeah, old WoD was all about the political (and eventually physicial) conflict between the differing clans. It's one of the reasons I prefer new WoD now that I'm used to it, because the game is actually designed to make it much easier to have a real mix of character types in a coven, pack, motley, or whatever the group for your specific subgame is. It even makes it relatively easy to get a game that mixes completely different supernatural templates together. Best game I've played had a group consisting of a hunter (one who knew enough to only hunt the truly bad monsters), a promethean, a geist, a changeling, my werewolf, and a few homebrew template, and it worked out fantastically.
Well, different games having different goals will yield different experiences...
But this only reinforce my opinion that, D&D/pathfinder being more of a traditionally cooperative game, players should be allowed to "plan" their party ahead if they want to without the perception of cheating the game.
I'm ambivalent about DMs suggesting classes or roles, bu I think there's a way to suggest without forcing, and not being resentful when the suggestion is rejected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never told anyone "hey you, play a cleric!" I have told people "So... everyone else in the party is playing some sort of fighter. It's going to be way way too crowded and frustrating if you do, so I'd really really suggest you make a cleric or a bard or something along those lines."
And... I've said that to people who turned around and made a 4th or 5th fighter, and ran with it, and... as predicted, everyone in that campaign ended up really frustrated because everyone was constantly stepping on everyone else's toes, and fights were ending too fast, and there was nobody to remove diseases.
Generally, working out group dynamics before a game starts is an important thing to do, both for mechanical balance and just, you know, avoiding clashing personalities.
THe original VtM had a whole example of 3 different players from 3 clans in a Chronicle. The key is to have them have a common agenda. Would those characters have turned on each other if it was convenient? Probably, but it's up to the ST to figure that out and make sure they need each other just enough to not kill eachother on game 1.
Fair enough. I'm not saying it wasn't possible to do, just that the experiences I had were entirely with games where clans generally wouldn't work together, and it was encouraged by the ST. That's what most reports I'd had of games from other groups were like to.
In new WoD, it seems much less likely to end in conflict, since they made the clans and compacts less important than the group. So for werewolves, their pack might include characters of different aspects, specialised in different ways, who might all share a lodge (clan). Or they could even be of different lodges, but just working together to protect their area. Same with vampires, a coterie might include kindred of many bloodlines (though they do seem more likely to be part of the same political structure). Motleys can be made up of changelings from any seeming, because for them the biggest thing is safety from the True Fae, and numbers help.
But yeah, getting a bit off topic here., so I'll leave it at that.
But yeah, getting a bit off topic here., so I'll leave it at that.
While a bit off-topic, it's not totally unrelated nor irrelevant to the present conversation.
Each game has a "suggested presentation" image of how the game is expected to be played.
In D&D, the structure of the game expects and encourages that all roles are fulfilled in the party, at least to a certain extent. Pathfinder has evolved enough that multiple classes can support multiple roles (sometimes simultaneously), so people usually find something that suit them, but the class structure and the design elements of the game nevertheless encourages players to "complete" the party.
I think a campaign where everyone makes their characters without consulting the other players could be fun, as long as the players and the GM are willing to take on that kind of campaign.
I actually prefer a game where the players do not know the other character's classes. I think it encourages role playing rather than metagaming.
That being said, I have never been able to pull it off with my current group. When I GM, they all tend to call each other in-between sessions and discuss things.
I actually prefer a game where the players do not know the other character's classes. I think it encourages role playing rather than metagaming.
I'm not gonna pull a "Stormwind Fallacy!!!" on you, but I do not think that a meta-gamey choice of class prevents roleplaying. A rich character can be developed regadless of the reason why you selected a certain class/role.
I'd rather say that it encourages playing in a typical D&D paradigm, which may or may not be a good thing based on your interest.
I'm not gonna pull a "Stormwind Fallacy!!!" on you, but I do not think that a meta-gamey choice of class prevents roleplaying. A rich character can be developed regadless of the reason why you selected a certain class/role.
I'd rather say that it encourages playing in a typical D&D paradigm, which may or may not be a good thing based on your interest.
A.) I put zero stock in the Stormwind Fallacy - it is bunk.
B.) Saying that something "encourages" something does not preclude that what is being encouraged cannot be otherwise done without the encouragement.
I would say a typical setup is where all of the players know the race/class of the other players when the game first starts. Nothing wrong with that. However, if they do not know that information, they're going to have to learn it during game play or otherwise interact with those characters to learn it.
Rather than just saying OOC "What class are you?" They're going to have to IC ask something like "What skills do you bring to this group?" Which then allows the player to define their character on their own terms.
I.E. this encourages the players to talk IC, which encourages role playing.
I put zero stock in the Stormwind Fallacy - it is bunk.
So you believe in the Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy theory? Are you sure you're not succumbing to the Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy?
I put zero stock in the Stormwind Fallacy - it is bunk.So you believe in the Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy theory? Are you sure you're not succumbing to the Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw3G80bplTg
I have not seen any DM "force" a player to play a class/role. I have seen both DM's and players suggest playing a class that fills a role that the party was currently missing. Even then, these suggestions only came when the new player had specifically asked for input as to what to create, or the party was looking for, etc. I have yet to actually see a DM come down on a new player and force them into a role.
I've never had a problem with players not roleplaying regardless how much info they might have about one another's characters. RP is a pleasure to be sought for its own sake in my mind.
I agree that it is a pleasure and should be done simply because of that, but I've definitely had groups that did not role play, or did not role play well.
That being said, the particular item you bring up (needing to RP specifically due to not knowing one another's characters) is going to vary from game to game. Sometimes it works well to have the players work together to craft a backstory wherein they are already a party when the actual gaming starts. Other times its fun to roleplay forming a party from scratch.
I agree. If the players all get together and contribute to a group back story that explains how they all came together, that is great too. That would also encourage role playing.
Maybe it's just a matter of taste. If the players decide, "We all know each other, and here's how!" I have no problem with that. If they decide, "We want the perfect party! Let's meta-game! You, meat-shield! You, arcane caster! You, face! You, healer! etc." it annoys me no end. Perhaps that's because part of my fun is watching them get to know each other via role-play. I mean, I like to have fun, too.
I understand your viewpoint, and that's more how I was 10 years ago or so. As time went on though, I became more lax in this area, as it often wasn't worth the effort.
I remember in the past having campaigns where all characters stats were hidden from one another (i.e. they all rolled with only myself as the GM around.) It worked sometimes, other times it was a real distraction once one player found out that another player rolled much better than him.
As a player, I usually hide my character's details when he's coming into a campaign. I don't think the other PCs should know my character's abilities until they've learned them in game. If the other players ask, I'll generally give them an idea as to my role (I'll be in the front fighting melee, or I'll be able to throw some heals but not a ton, etc.)